Con Law - Lesson 1 "The Preamble"

[Into the Night]

What's to discuss? Trumpers want to shred the Constitution, all other Americans want to support and defend it.

I'm in the "support and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic" category.

You ARE the enemy. Destroy yourself.
You discard the Constitution. You support those that discard the Constitution. You support the Democrats. You support The Oligarchy.

 

[Into the Night]

Translation: Fuck the Preamble. Trump can shit all over it because "It isn't law".

Mistranslation. TDS.

Agreed it's not law, but disagreed that you and your fellow traitors can shit all over it.

You are describing yourself.

BTW, more and more Republicans are supporting the Republican party over the Party of Trump.

You are hallucinating again.

How long before houses that sport Trump stickers and flags are treated like those with Nazi flags?

The Nazis were based on fascism, a form of socialism. Trump is not a socialist. Democrats are.

Eggs? TP? A gallon of gasoline? Some people are truly fucking stupid....but sometimes are useful idiots.

You are describing Democrats.

 

[Into the Night]

I just wondered if with a little education some might see the errors of their ways.

Apparently YOU won't.

 

[Into the Night]

Its becoming more and more clear to me the Defeated President is done. These people still exist, waiting for another justification to come back from their hiding places.

War mongering.

 

[Into the Night]

In young, sane people, yes. On JPP the demographic is primarily Euro-American males over 65. Most of them have problems changing their Depends much less their minds.

Jus' sayin'.

I would say your are describing yourself again.

 

[ParachuteAdams]

 

[Into the Night]

Hello Jarod,



Well, as soon as you wanted to talk about promoting the general welfare the right was out. No interest. They simply lack the capacity to even recognize those words. It's like the first half of the second amendment. As far as they are concerned, it doesn't exist.

It does exist. It has nothing to do with the right of the people to bear arms. It has to do with the right of a State to defend itself using militias.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello Dutch,



But if you ask them, it's the other way around. They think liberals want to trash the constitution, think they are the ones upholding it.

You have already trashed the Constitution. You discard the 2nd amendment. You somehow feel that the Welfare clause authorizes communism.

 

[Into the Night]

This is my point, they need to learn about the Constitution if they are going to pretend things are unconstitutional.

You can't teach it. You discard the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Secrecy can be evidence of conciousness of guilt.

So the entire SSL protocol is to hide criminal activity. Gotit.
So you have no problem telling the government where you go, what you do, where you shop, etc.
You have no problem with ALL of your personal information being shared with everyone. Gotit.

 

[Into the Night]

True. It's circumstantial but is evidence that a closer look is warranted. The fact that every time a state takes a closer look at TrumpCo they find dirt should be disturbing to many.

In 2016 I recall an interview of business/political insiders who commented that Trump was warned that by running for President, his businesses and personal activities would come under intense scrutiny for any crimes. Trump blew them off. LOL

Hallucination. Void argument fallacy. TDS.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello Jarod,



Good luck. The right will not listen to reason. They get all their knowledge from entertainment pundits who testify in court that everyone should know they cannot be relied upon to report fact.

We have to wonder why it is called the right when they have such a penchant for getting things so wrong!

You are describing Democrats.

 

[Into the Night]

Good theory but you're referencing limp-dicked geezers living in a retirement facility with nothing to do but support Trump and hate America ideals of freedom, democracy and unity.

Bigotry. TDS. Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hallucination. Void argument fallacy. TDS.

Explain your reasoning. Support your argument. If you cannot, then why should anyone respect you?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Bigotry. TDS. Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

Explain your reasoning. Support your argument. If you cannot, then why should anyone respect you?

 

[Into the Night]

Actually, not. The preamble is like an executive summary in a long report. It isn't the 'meat and potatoes' of the Constitution and is essentially a throw-away sentence in importance.

Not completely.

The Constitution, as written, was meant as a check on government, a restraint.

No. The Constitution (any constitution) defines and declares a government, and gives it specific powers and authorities. It has no other powers or authorities than that specifically given by that constitution. That constitution also specifies how elections to that government are conducted, and how the constitution itself is to be amended. The only people that can change a constitution are it's owners; in this case, the States themselves. They created it. They ordained it and sustained it. Only they can change it. They can also choose to abolish it (thus abolishing the government that constitution declares and defines).

Because a constitution defines and declares a government. It is inherently ALREADY a check on that government.

The 'Welfare' clause is not a power or authority. It has a specific purpose. It is to direct the government so created to use it's powers and authorities given by that constitution for supporting the general welfare (note this is NOT communism, the way the Democrats want to read it!). In other words, it is to be for the benefit of a free people, and for free States, coming together for a common purpose (establishing a common defense and other specific purposes).

"To promote the common welfare" is so vague a statement as to be meaningless other than as a platitude.

It is not a power or authority. It is a directive. It has a purpose. It is not authorizing communism. It is directing the federal government to use it's given power and authority to benefit the free people and the free States of America. It is not a power or authority in itself.

It's actually a restraint.

What restraint is placed on that statement?

It is itself a restraint. Democrats want to convert the term 'general welfare' to mean 'communism', and use that redefinition to cancel the remainder of the constitution.

What are the limits of it?

It is itself a limit. Everything the federal government does must be for the general welfare of the free people and the free States of America. That does NOT include communism or socialism in any way. Every power or authority given the federal government is to be used for this restraint and limit.

That's how the rest of the Constitution is framed, so why would those writing it put in a clause or sentence that could be interpreted so broadly as to render most of the rest of the document meaningless unless that sentence was meant to be meaningless?

Because it isn't broad. It's a restraint. It is not a power or authority to implement fascism or communism or to cancel any other part of the Constitution.

This is Democrats redefining a term.

'General welfare' simply means 'for the benefit of the general population'. It simply directs the federal government that all powers and authorities it is given should be used for that purpose, with the understanding that the constitution itself was formed by a free people, working through free States to implement this contract called the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

Why include a meaningless sentence?

It isn't.

The Courts have said you are wrong.

No court has any authority over the Constitution. See Article III.

There is significant meaning in the preamble, its a roadmap for how to read the remainder.

Here I actually agree with you. The 'General Welfare' clause is a restraint in and of itself, not a power or authority.

I agree it does not carry force of law, but it is significant to show the intent of the founders.

Which is what it does.

I do not believe any word in the Constitution is meaningless.

But you do. You want to use this clause completely out of context, and change the meaning of what 'general welfare' means.

It does NOT mean socialism or communism in any way.
It does NOT mean cancelling any part of the Constitution in any way.

 

[Into the Night]

The right wing is very selective about what is in the Constitution. They believe "A well regulated Militia" in the 2nd Amendment is a meaningless phrase and can be ignored.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is not a meaningless phrase. It is simply referring to a right of any State to defend itself. It uses militias for that.
YOU believe that 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' is a meaningless phrase and can be ignored.
YOU believe that 'shall not be infringed' is a meaningless phrase and can be ignored.

The 2nd amendment discusses the right of self defense.
1) The right of a State to defend itself using militias that it organizes for the purpose (well regulated).
2) The right of an individual to defend himself by keeping and bearing Arms (weapons...ANY type of weapon).
NEITHER shall be infringed.

This restraint applies to the States as well as to the Federal government. Each State agreed to it when they joined the Union.

Since then, of course, they have violated their own agreement.

It's so bad in some former States they have effectively left the Union. They no longer recognize the Constitution of the United States nor the constitution of their own State. Two of note are the SOTC (formerly California) and the SOTNY (formerly the State of New York). Both of these have become oligarchies. The SOTC is moving towards dictatorship.

Like Democrats everywhere, they:

* dictate who can and who cannot make a political opinion (ignoring the 1st amendment).
* dictate what gun you can carry or make so you cannot carry a gun at all (ignoring the 2nd amendment).
* snoop into your private papers, spy on citizens, and make use of 'scarlet letters' (ignoring the 4th amendment).
* convict people, take their private property, etc without due process (ignoring the 5th amendment).
* convict without trial (ignoring the 6th amendment).
* deny trial by jury (ignoring the 7th amendment).
* want to kill people for their beliefs (ignoring the 8th amendment).
* try to use the constitution as an instrument that grants rights (ignoring the 9th amendment and the purpose of a constitution).
* try to use the federal government to bully states, and attributing to the federal government powers and authorities it does not have (ignoring the 10th amendment).
* intervene using the Supreme Court lawsuits by citizens of one State to file lawsuits against another State (ignoring the 11th amendment).
* want to bring slavery back to the States in the form of 'inner city plantations' (ignoring the 13th amendment).
* do not want equal protection of the laws (ignoring the 14th amendment).
* describe 'blacks are too stupid to get voter id' (ignoring the 15th amendment).
* want to 'tax the rich' (ignoring the 16th amendment).
* want to claim 'special rights' for the gays, for women, for lesbians, etc. while denying rights to 'white oppressors' (ignoring the 19th amendment).
* want to impeach over and over, dictating to the Senate conditions for trial (ignoring Article I, $2-3).
* claim the President originates spending (ignoring Article I, $7).
* coerce foreign nations by intimidation for personal gain, such as Biden's son benefiting from intervention by Obama (ignoring Article I, $9).
* stole the gold and silver from citizens, and replaced it with fiat currency (ignoring Article I, $10).
* attribute the choices of electors to administrative or executive branches of governments instead of with the legislatures of each State (ignoring Article II, $1).
* violate their own oath of office by failing to defend the Constitution of the United States (as evidenced here, and ignoring Article II, $1).
* ignore their own treason, such as when Biden's Handlers gave weapons to the enemy in a time of war (ignoring Article II, $4 and Article III, $3).
* attempt to usurp the authority to change the Constitution from the States through the use of a court (ignoring Article V).

 

[Into the Night]

The "Militia" has meaning. The Orgainzed militia consists today of the National Guard. The unorganized militia is the people themselves. Much like Switzerland, as an example, the idea is that every able-bodied citizen is part of the militia and defends the nation when necessary. Thus, keeping military grade weapons by individual citizens is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.

An organized militia consists of any organized military force. The National Guard is the national militia. There are also State militias. You can certainly say the unorganized militia is the people themselves, but a State (or the federal government) has the inherent right to defend itself. They do this by forming militias (armies).

The 2nd amendment does not specify any weapon by type, class, make, or form. There are NO limits on weapons. ANY weapon is an 'Arm'.

Yes. You have the right to keep and bear a nuclear bomb. Not a practical weapon to be sure, but you have the right to do so.

As with all your weapons, you are responsible for it's storage and use (up to a reasonable point of course).
That is true whether it's a baseball bat, a kitchen cleaver, a sword, any type of gun, any type of bomb, any type of any weapon.

Want a tank? There's actually a hobbyist group out there that owns their own tanks and head out to a range they have to shoot with them. Great fun!
Want a fully automatic machine gun? You can even rent them!
How about a bomb? I make these all the time. They are used as salutes and in displays in fireworks shows (yes, I am a licensed pyrotechnician and manufacturer). I recently used a half dozen 2 inch bombs and a gasoline fireball (called Dragon's Breath) to blow up an old car the way the movies do it. We were training some interested pyrotechnicians on how to do this.
Prefer cannons? You can own your own and even shoot it. There's a hobbyist group for these as well.
Mortars? I have about 200 of those. I use them in fireworks displays. Anything from 3 inch to 12 inch shells (which I also make).
Perhaps a trebuchet? There's one guy who built his own out in the midwest on his property. He hurls old Buicks with it.
Swords? I own several, including a couple of wooden training swords (these can be deadly!), a sabre, a foil, and a katana. I'm reasonably good at any of them.
Flamethrowers? I know several people that make their own. These backpack mounted devices can shoot flames a good 50 feet. They're actually pretty easy to make, if you want to spend a bit of money on them. I know one gal that fire dances and built her own flamethrower. I pity the fool that dates her! That guy had better know what he's getting into!

People make their own ammunition too. Everything from darts to bolts to arrows to guns all the way up to shells for their tanks. I've seen some pretty creative loads in shotgun shells!

Switzerland is not the United States. It's quite reasonable rule is based on the requirement that every male must serve in the military, and you keep your weapon with you after discharge, ready to be called into action again, if needed. You are of course expected to maintain your weapon in good condition at all times, just as if you were still serving. Fortunately, most people do tend to take reasonable care of their guns.

Every State has the right to defend itself using militias armed with ANY WEAPON.
Every individual has the right to defend himself armed with ANY WEAPON.
Every individual has the right to keep ANY WEAPON.

 

[Into the Night]

Explain your reasoning. Support your argument. If you cannot, then why should anyone respect you?

I don't need to explain your reasoning.